Peak Tibiofemoral Contact Forces Estimated Using IMU-Based Approaches Are Not Significantly Different from Motion Capture-Based Estimations in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Altered tibiofemoral contact forces represent a risk factor for osteoarthritis onset and progression, making optimization of the knee force distribution a target of treatment strategies. Musculoskeletal model-based simulations are a state-of-the-art method to estimate joint contact forces, but they typically require laboratory-based input and skilled operators. To overcome these limitations, ambulatory methods, relying on inertial measurement units, have been proposed to estimated ground reaction forces and, consequently, knee contact forces out-of-the-lab. This study proposes the use of a full inertial-capture-based musculoskeletal modelling workflow with an underlying probabilistic principal component analysis model trained on 1787 gait cycles in patients with knee osteoarthritis. As validation, five patients with knee osteoarthritis were instrumented with 17 inertial measurement units and 76 opto-reflective markers. Participants performed multiple overground walking trials while motion and inertial capture methods were synchronously recorded. Moderate to strong correlations were found for the inertial capture-based knee contact forces compared to motion capture with root mean square error between 0.15 and 0.40 of body weight. The results show that our workflow can inform and potentially assist clinical practitioners to monitor knee joint loading in physical therapy sessions and eventually assess long-term therapeutic effects in a clinical context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".